Same-sex marriage
The issue of same-sex marriage or the civil union of homosexuals is a topic a great debate in the United States. As more states, such as Massachusettes, grant civil unions and marriages to same-sex couples, opponents of these marriages have grown more outspoken. Earlier this year, Congress debated an amendment that would not allow states to grant marriages to homosexual couples. Same-sex Marriage Laws Around the World United States In the United States, the decision on whether to allow same-sex marriages has been left to the states. Currently, only Massachusetts allows same-sex marriages. Vermont and Connecticut allow Civil Unions, while Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia have some spousal-like rights for same-sex couples. This creates a potentially complex issue because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution. A same-sex couple legally married in Massachussetts can get divorced in Massachussets and have spousal support and/or child support assigned to one ex, who can then move to another state who may not recognize either the marriage or the divorce and in turn the award of support. New York In a 4-2 decision, the New York Court of Appeals said that the state's marriage law is constitutional, and clearly limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Judge Robert Smith said, "Any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature." Canada Same-sex marriage is currently the law of the land in Canada, following decisions in cases brought before provincial courts, followed by a decision by the Supreme Court, followed by a bill passed in Parliament in 2005 under the government in power at the time. The short summary would be that all provincial court decisions found that denying marriage to same-sex couples would violate rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the federal supreme court found that Parliament had the right deny or grant marriage rights to same-sex couples as it saw fit. Subsequently the government passed a law granting marriage rights to same-sex couples. Religious concerns were raised during these events. Religious freedoms are protected under the Charter, and some religious groups object to same-sex marriage. These concerns were finessed by the assurance that no religious authority would be required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, if it did not wish to do so. Thus, any same-sex couple may get married, but they might not be able to have their marriage ceremony performed in certain places of worship. The newly-elected government has been promising to re-visit the same-sex marriage issue in Parliament sometime during the fall. Wikipedia has an excellent review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada . United Kingdom Civil Partnerships Placeholder text, to be made more specific, describing the recently introduced institution of Civil Partnership which is open to two individuals of the same sex Switzerland In 2005, 58% of the Swiss people aproved the new law on registrated partnerships (Partnerschaftsgesetz) in a public vote that introduces marriage-like partnerships for same-sex couples. On January 1st, 2007, the law will come into effect. Marriage remains reserved for couples of different sex. The law brings the same rights and responsibilities as marriages, though there are some exceptions: * the family names of the partners remain unchanged, though, in practice, it is allowed to use the partners name instead or in addition even in legal transactions. * the couple is not allowed to adopt children The parlimentary web site on the topic (german and french only): http://www.parlament.ch/homepage/do-archiv/do-partnerschaft.htm Arguments In Favor of Same-sex Marriage Separation of Church and State Marriage is a legal issue. The state recognizes marriage as a legal partnership in which two individuals enter, and grants them certain rights and privileges that go beyond those which unmarried individuals have. For instance, in the case of the death of one partner in a marriage, even without a will the estate of the deceased is usually automatically willed to the living partner. The definition of Marriage as purely religious is incomplete. This denies the reality of entirely secular marriages performed by Justices of the Peace. It also denies the presence of the many legal benefits afforded to married couples which are denied to un-married ones. In some marriages, the only true religious involvement is the performance of a ceremony to indicate the marriage is recognized by a church. Marriage may have started as a purely religious agreement, but its current reality is much broader. Equality Over 1,100 rights and responsibilities are afforded to heterosexual couples through marriage. Simple rights such as hospital visitation and healthcare coverage are easily available to heterosexual couples through marriage, but unavailable for same-sex couples. Denying same-sex couples marriage essentially creates a group of second-class citizens without access to the same rights as heterosexual couples. Gender Discrimination An interesting, though academic, issue is that of gender discrimination. Adressing this overall controversy with the label of 'Gay Marriage' is actually a misnomer. A lesbian can legally marry a gay man, but two heterosexual women cannot legally marry each other. When same-sex marriage is prohibited by law, a person is denied a right (or privilege, depending on semantics) based solely on their gender. Some people try to argue that is not the case, that a man has the same rights as a woman to marry the opposite sex. However, if a woman wants to marry another woman it is her gender that is the sole factor that restricts her rights. This principle is not unlike those surrounding the interracial marriage issue that was only recently addressed in the US. The argument was made that a black person has the same rights as a white person to marry within their 'race' and that both blacks and whites were equally prohibited from marrying outside their 'race.' Until 1967, many states had laws banning interracial marriage. In Loving v Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_vs_virginia) the US Supreme Court struck down all those laws. Today, you would be hard pressed to find a US citizen who thought interracial marriage should be illegal... in fact most people under 40 might be surprised to learn how recently it was still illegal. The arguments against interracial marriage were not unlike those against same-sex marriage. Many quoted scripture that forbade it. Many felt it would undermine the institution of marriage. Many felt it would harm the children. It all comes down to a simple point: Denying a person the right to marry another consenting adult based solely on their gender is simply gender discrimination... Gender Identity All of this inherently requires the state to produce a legal definition of the terms 'man' and 'woman.' In most cases, this is not an issue, but transgendered/transsexual people cause a bit of a problem when it comes to same-sex marriage laws. For some examples: Christie Lee and Jonathan Littleton were married for 6 1/2 years in Texas. Jonathon died as a result of malpractice and the doctor's lawyers got the court to throw out the case by anulling the marriage on the grounds that although Christie was a fully post-op, her chromosomes legally defined her as male. As an unintended consequence, many lesbian couples have gone to Texas to get legally married because although one of the couple was a post-op woman, she legally was male by virtue of her chromosomes. There was a similar ruling in Kansas with the case of J'Noel Gardiner. In contrast, in Florida (where it is illegal for a homosexual to adopt children and same-sex marriage is illegal), Michael Kantaras was awarded custody of his children even though he still had female genitalia and female chromosomes. "Chromosomes are only one factor in the determination of sex and they do not overrule gender or self-identity which is the true test or identifying mark of sex," wrote Pasco County Judge Gerard O'Brien. "Michael has always, for a lifetime, had a self-identity as a male." This was a particularly noteworthy custody award because the children were born to his ex-wife and were in no way biologically his own. So, if we are to pass laws saying that marriage must be betwen a 'man' and a 'woman' what criterion ultimately defines gender? Is it chromosomes? Is it anatomy? Is it personal identity? Freedom and Individual Liberty The United States was founded on the principles of Freedom, and Personal Liberty. Allowing same-sex marriages would be extending upon gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (GLBT) people the freedom to choose a life partner and be respected by the State. A same-sex marriage would not limit the freedom of heterosexual individuals, in any way. Limiting marriage to a heterosexual definition would be limiting the freedoms of a minority group of people. This is the classic example of the ‘tyranny of the majority’, which is the enemy of Democracy. Distorted View of GLBT People and Culture GLBT persons who participate in pride parades and other festivities are often considered to be representative for the entire GLBT community. This makes GLBT people seem extravagant and careless, characteristics which are difficult to unite with a serious marriage. It must be noted, however, many of GLBT people are not eager to express their sexuality. They consider it to be a personal issue. Such people could establish a very robust marriage and be very good at child rearing. These people do not fit a distorted view of GLBT people and are often not considered in debates. Dissent This type of discourse suggests individuals must fit into a standard of normalacy to have the freedom to marry, though this qualification does not currently apply to heterosexuals. It is not the ‘sameness’ of GLBT people that should entitle them to marry whomever they please, it is their citizenship and equality as human beings which can not and should not be negated through the participation in parades or celebration of identity and sexuality. The Fallacy of 'Protecting' Traditional Marriage A common tactic used by those opposed to equal rights for GLBT citizens is to claim that they are 'protecting' traditional marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage would in no way limit existing, or future, heterosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriages would be as legal as they are today. Allowing gay marriage would simply mean that more citizens would have access to the rights and protections that are currently only provided to heterosexual couples. Characteristic of this defense is an inability or an unwillingness to differentiate matrimony, the Christian sacrament of marriage, from legal marriage -- although a legal marriage certificate is necessary to complete a marriage in the Church, a religious ceremony is not required to accompany a certificate. The rights of heterosexual couples who choose to marry in a strictly legal context -- outside of any religious ceremony -- are protected by state and federal laws, weakening the logic of prohibiting homosexual couples to marry in this way. Interestingly, there are already many churches (including some mainstream denominations) that will perform the sacrament of marriage for a same-sex couple, and yet the state will not recognize those bonds of holy matrimony. It seems that the whole 'protecting traditional marriage' argument is really wrapped up around two issues: - Having Sex (God forbid gays get married, then they might be "allowed" to have sex) - Bearing/Rearing children (Won't _somebody_ please think of the children!) Having Sex: Frankly, there is a common perception that a couple will have more sex before marriage. Certainly the notion of only having sex within the confines of a marriage is quite anachronistic in most western cultures. There are plenty of single people having sex and plenty of married people having sex outside of their marital relationship. Bearing/Rearing children: There are plenty of children born out of wedlock, and there are plenty of married couples who have no plans or desire to have children. Likewise, there are many same-sex couples that are currently parenting children without the benefit of marriage. It is a fallacy to equate marriage with sex or to equate marriage with children, but at least in the case of children wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that Heather would be better off if the two mommies she already has could be married? Sexual Orientation is Not a Choice Human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Numerous scientific studies have recently shown that sexual orientation is set as early as in the womb; there is evidence that biological birth order, prenatal hormones, and genetic predisposition influence sexual orientation. This evidence is also corroborated by studies of twins. The existence of bisexuality confuses some people into believing that all people have a choice, but this should not be universalized. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. It is a fact of human psychology that, while a person can choose to act or not act on a desire (depending on competing desires), one cannot choose what one desires. If choice of desires were possible, then everyone could choose to desire what they already have, thereby fufilling those desires, although this still requires action to be based on the desire to see desires fufilled. Given the social stigma and risks of violence of being gay even today, unless one assumes or believe that same-sex attraction is appealing on some level, it is difficult to rationalize why one would choose to be gay if it really were a choice. Framing the Argument Many opponents of gay marriage like to describe the argument as a definitional one; they claim that the real issue is how we define the institution of marriage. This argument avoids the real question. As Jon Stewart put it in his debate with conservative Bill Bennett, "I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish." Counterpoint to Slippery Slope Argument Conservative opponents of homosexual marriages often make what is known as the slippery slope argument. They argue that if we allow gay marriages, then that is simply the first step towards allowing polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, and other sorts of unconventional sexual behaviors. This argument is flawed in many ways. First of all, same sex marriage is intrinsically different in nature from pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality; polygamy is a choice and not a condition, pedophilia involves non adults and is a form of abuse (non consensual), and bestiality is not a union between two consenting parties. This argument is more of a scare tactic than a rational discourse. In addition, the slippery slope argument could go the other way: if we let the government decide who we can marry based on sexual orientation, then what is to stop them from making income level or race qualifications for marriage? Counterpoint to Religious Imperative Argument Proper separation of church and state, as discussed above, would preclude this, as enforcing the moral code of one religion violates individuals' rights to choose their own religion (or to choose none). Counterpoint to Natural Order Argument Many species of animals, including mammals other than humans, have members that are homosexual and mate with members of their own sex. :"It is obvious that only that coupling is the one accepted by nature"? Your argument has a critical flaw... you suggest that it takes a man and a woman to create a child naturally, that is not being debated... however, you say that because there is this requirement of a man and woman to physically produce, homosexuality is not justified naturally as a way to raise the offspring outside of physical production.. Those are two different things. One deals with physical procreation, the other deals with parenting. If you look at the animal kingdom (humans included) there are instances of not only homosexual couples raising the young (quite successfully), but also multiple couples, and even communities all raising and acting as parents to the offspring that are produced. While much has been touted about findings that homosexuality is natural, there are studies that indicate different findings, such as the American Psychological Association's "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html. Dr. Paul Cameron, Chariman of the Family Research Institute, maintains it is a choice, and there are numerous documented cases of individuals choosing to change their sexual orientation. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet5.html :Dr. Cameron received his PhD in psychology in 1966, but has since been ejected from the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association after he "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism." http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html That pamphlet bothers me when it emphasizes that "societies that accept homosexuality have more of it and those that disapprove of and punish it have considerably less of it". This is junk psychology. Societies that disapprove of homosexuality aren't going to have as high of a rate of reporting. And while the behavior may be diminished, the inclinations may remain, repressed in favor of heterosexual impulses, or even in favor of asexuality, even if there is emotional damage. Saying that only one is accepted by nature is incorrect. Many species display homosexual mating for life, the most notable example of which are penguinshttp://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp. As high as 15% of male penguins mate for life with another male penguin. These "gay" couples "adopt" and raise the abandoned eggs of other penguins. It seems, then, that nature needs homosexuality. What is "natural" and how is it even relevant? If by natural you mean that non-human animals do something, then there are many examples of homosexual behavior among animals.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_animal_sexuality#Homosexual_behavior Since it occurs in the natural world, then that makes it "natural." Being "natural" or "unnatural" does not make something good or bad. For example, Hemlock and viruses are natural, kidney transplants and scissors are unnatural. Arguing if homosexuality is not “natural” does not seem to prove very much. Attempts to make a moral argument based upon the natural order employ a logical fallacy: the naturalistic fallacy. Attempting to argue that something is morally correct because it's natural would also condone behaviors such as murder, rape, and theft. Can a "straight" person choose to be "gay?" No. The can choose to perform gay acts, but cannot intrincically change to be gay. The opposite is also true - gay people can "act" straight, but inside, they are still gay, as they were created. Dissent It is entirely possible for a limited number of people to change their preference from men to women, or from white to black people, or from skinny to fat. That should not be taken as a sign that all people or even many people can do so. Additionally, just because something is possible does not mean it should be done -- and it certainly doesn't validate the idea that one state or another is right or wrong. Arguments Against Same-sex Marriage Natural Order The intrinsically heterosexual nature of mammalian procreation suggests homosexuality is indeed aberrant. As only sex between a man and woman can produce offspring, it is obvious that only that coupling is one accepted by nature. Slippery Slope When discussing the sexual orientation of people, there are myriad possibilities. People can not only be heterosexual or homosexual, but also be polygamous, pedophiliac or zoophilic for example. Modern psychologists agree that this is also not by choice and definitely not voluntarily changeable. Promoting gay marriage simply because it is not a voluntary choice to be gay would also mean promoting (consensual?) relations between adults and children by the same argument. The involuntariness of homosexuality per se can therefore not be a valid argument and other societal factors have to be taken into account. Religious Imperative The need or otherwise of aligning secular law with the moral code of a majority religion. First and foremost, all religion aside, secular law should always be aligned with the majority, moral codes or no moral codes. This is both the purpose and spirit of democracy. Secondly, (the vast majority of, if not all) gay marriage supporters are not in any way suggesting people cannot live whatever lifestyle(s) they choose. They are merely stating that such behavior cannot and should not be condoned in what is, like it or not, a religious institution. Gay marriage supporters, on the other hand, are suggesting that homosexuals are entitled to protections by a religious institution, and (more often than not) claiming that anything otherwise would be intolerant. However, this is a weak argument at best and a hypocritical one at worst. Gays wishing a legally-binding institution are free to pursue one--just leave ours alone. Arguments Against Marriage in General Discrimination Such an institution discriminates against single people (and any other people with alternative lifestyles) by giving tax breaks to married people and some additional rights. Personal issue, no need for state involvement The State should not get involved into the people's life especially when it's related to sexual practices and personal choices. Counterpoint to Freedom and Individual Liberty Argument While many pro-gay marriage advocates claim that marriage is a freedom, marriage is actually a State and/or society issue, not a personal or individual issue. People have the right to do anything they want, but "marriage" would not exist without the State or society, therefore you can't say that the State/society take a freedom from the citizens since that's not a "freedom" from the beginning, it's a State/society sponsored institution. The issue here is discrimination, not freedom, but that's a different discussion. Counterpoint to Framing the Argument Many proponents of gay marriage claim the true issue is whether or not homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. I believe this to be a red herring--the only real issue is the definition of marriage. While ones belief regarding the status of homosexuals can--and oftentimes does--influence ones stance, it has no real bearing on the true issue at hand--whether marriage is an exclusive union between males and females or a more general bonding between two individuals. Counterpoint to Sexual Orientation is Not a Choice Wheather sexual orientation is a choice or not is irrelevant to the "gay marriage" discussion. People can fall in love, have straight or gay sex without getting married. Marriage status is not a precondition to express one's sexuality. We have had heterosexual marriage both when people believed that sexuality was a choice or when they belived it was a destiny, therefore the choice vs. destiny is irrelevant to the marriage discussion. Government Policy Options States Rights The Constitution nowhere grants the Federal government the power to regulate marriage, so with no amendment whatsoever it is already possible for individual states to do what they want about gay marriage. People who feel threatened by gay marriage are free to live in a state that does not allow it, and people who want it are free to live in a state that allows it. Civil Unions Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Unites States Constitution states that Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Marriage is a legally recognized union. Given the nature of the accumulation of assets in today's society, there is a clear imperative to establish a universal definition of marriage. Couples who are married in a state that recognizes same sex marriages, but hold assets in ones that do not, would face legal difficulties that were intended to be mitigated by the above clause. Civil Unions between individuals is the only logical step. This would provide adequate protection for heterosexual, homosexual, and platonic couples. Marriage would be left as a religious or personal contractual bond between whichever people choose to recognize it, but there would be no state or federal recognition of marriage. Giving of power of attorney and whatever contracts that marriage currently implies could be entered into explicitly by any two people (as they are now). This would pretty much be the same as a civil union. Party Platforms United States Democrats We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage Amendment." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart. Source: Democratic Party Platform for America, 2004, p. 42 Libertarians From the National Libertarian Party Web Sitehttp://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#sexurigh: The Issue: Government has presumed to decide acceptability over sexual practices in personal relationships, imposing a particular code of moral and social values and displacing personal choice in such matters. The Principle: Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity. Solutions: We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. Transitional Action: We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles. Republicans We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform: A Safer World and a More Hopeful America, p. 83 GTL Party From the God, Truth and Love Party Web Sitehttp://www.gtlparty.org In Truth: People can and do fall in love with members of the same sex. Through Love: They are happy and their situation has no detrimental effect on others. They should be allowed to do as they please. Initiative: Legalize gay marriage while guaranteeing religious institutions that they will not have to perform or recognize such marriages. Homosexuality has always existed. It is part of the human condition and has been documented in several species in the animal kingdom. Gays and lesbians experience the range of human emotions as heterosexuals do. They fall in love and wish to express that love through making a lasting commitment. That expression of love and wish to exhibit and celebrate it is no less valid because of their sexual orientation. Same sex couples have suffered many trials and tribulations over the years. Acts of hate and violence against them, overt and covert prejudice, the denial of marital rights, the loss of inheritance from same sex partners, the lack of access to health and other employment benefits normally shared by spouses, and the acceptance by family, friends, and the greater community are all detrimentally affected by the continued denial of equal marriage rights for same sex couples. The United States, formerly a leader in human rights, is lagging behind the world in gay and lesbian rights. The Netherlands, Canada and Spain have all granted marriage rights to same sex couples. Several other countries in Europe are currently studying the matter and are moving swiftly towards the full recognition that sexual orientation between two people who wish to marry should not be a matter that the state can dictate. Perspectives (Share your feedback about this section's format/content on the discussion page!) As a way of starting a deeper conversation around Gay marriage, please post your "Perspective" below. This will give us a clear structure for looking at all the diverse and interesting perspectives we all hold. Each Perspective should be formatted as follows: "I am _______, and I believe _______." EXAMPLE: "I am a gay man, and I believe we should have the right to marry." EXAMPLE: "I am a businessman, and I believe that gay marriage is a source of new money for the economy." EXAMPLE: "I am a Republican, and I think marriage should be between a man and a woman." Let's keep this civil, thoughtful and friendly... and have fun! What's YOUR perspective? Remember to "sign" your comment with four tildes *I'm a 28-year old gay man, and I believe that the rights equated with marriage should be available to all people, so that marriage is just a religious or personal commitment, and the government does not need to be involved at all. :: * I am a heterosexual secular man, and I believe the government should not discriminate in marriages on the basis of gender but should instead endorse long-term social contracts between two people. :: * I'm a 44 year old man with one female spouse. Why should I be limited to marrying one person? 198.95.226.224 06:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am an 18 year old Christian, and I believe that the Biblical definition should stand- that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. :: * I am a 19 year old Christian male, and I believe that it is wrong for the government to make decisions based on any religous organizaton. Thus, I believe that gay marriage should be left up to the people of each state. Personally, I see nothing wrong with gay marriage, and I honestly do not see how gay marriage will "erode our christian values" any more than war and bloodshed will. :: * I am a 32 year old married straight agnostic man and I agree 100% with the first two perspectives. In answer to the one about the Biblical definition, I think the Bible stands on its own and does not need the government to endorse or not endorse it. Government should stay out of marriage entirely and the word should be stricken from all government laws. --Kg6cvv 21:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am a 19 year old heterosexual Christian college student, and I believe that we should not discriminate against homosexuals. There should be a gay marriage ammendment to the Constitution that makes it universally LEGAL. :: * I am a 20 year old Christian male living in Kansas, and I don't believe in preventing people from getting married by the state, as I see state marriage and religious marriage differently. The state is not a christian theocracy, and the concept of marriage should be handled in a secular manner. The church shouldn't be forced to acknowledge all state marriages as valid to their faith, however (but the church can't invalidate a state marriage). The state should stay out of the church's business, and vice versa. One cannot force everyone to do things his or her way. I see my view as a good comprimise, and i'm hoping others will too. --Anphanax 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am a 23 year old Christian gay man. I find the importance of marriage being in the eyes of God and your peers not our Leaders. :: *I am a 17 year old male Christian high school student, and I believe that homosexual marriage has no lasting purpose because most committed homosexual relationships last less than 3 years. :: *I am a rational human, and I think that even if homosexual relationships had a higher failure rate it might be due to the intense prejudice against the homosexuals from society and not on their inability to be committed. :: * I am a person. I don't believe in publishing private info online. I also don't believe it's State business to interfere in private lives, marriage is an archaic institution, it should be abolished completely. If people want to swear eternal faith and bliss to each other is only their own business. -- Blackdog 21:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am a 20 year old male college student, and I believe that the point here is not trying to classify what the word "marriage" means, since this will just show a single person's opinion. "Gay Marriage" cannot be put to the term just as simple as looking at same sex people marrying. It's a simple matter of equal rights. -- Quetzalcoatl 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am a male American, and I believe that statistics should be left out of this (for both sides), as there are few ways to verify them, and most statistics are twisted, anyway. Futhurmore, I believe that gay marriage should be left completely up to religious organizations and not up to the government at all, and that the government should only be able to grant civil unions, which give any number of people legal rights regarding other members of the same group. This way, no one's religious beliefs should be offended, and any people who trust each other enough to give them rights over their own life can give these rights freely. -- Kimastergeorge 23:00, 6 July 2006 :: * I am a 15 year old gay male, and my worst fear in life is that I will die alone, with no one to grow old with. :: * I am a Libertarian. It is time for the government to stop abusing the word marriage. If we must recognize two people making a commitment to each other, then call it a civil union, or something else. The state has co-opted a religious rite, and the religious, including myself should be more offended. :: *I am a heterosexual male and I believe that it is not a big deal. I dont understand how homosexual marriage will hurt america. Gays are people too... :: *I am a 32 year old gay male, and I'd love nothing more than to be able to marry my boyfrield who I love very deeply. I wish the government would just mind their own business - what gives them the right to tell me who I can fall in love with? :: * I am a 18 year old hetero white male, with a Christian upbringing. I see no reason why a goverment, or people should infringe on the lives of others. In a nation such as the US, which prides itself in freedoms, freedom to love and marry who ever you wish should stood for. Religion and old tradition should not define all laws. Tom 360 02:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :: * I am a 16 year old heterosexual male. I do not subscribe to the agenda of any party. I believe GLBT people should be afforded the same protection and privileges under the law as straight people, including marriage. Marriage in the legal context is not in any way a religious issue. Religion has no place in the laws of the United States. Gay marriage is an issue as to whether gay people should be given the same privileges under the law as straight people, and the Charters of Freedom are quite clear on the idea that every human being is entitled to the same protections and privileges. * I am a 20 year old Gay Man. I am the Republican's worst enemy. The worst theing they could do was have George Bush gay-bash in his 2003 State of the Union Address, because it has encouraged me to go into a life of politics. I am a politically active, militant, college-democrat leader who is determined to oust every Republican Politician from my purple state. Their wedge-issue forced me to open my eyes, and they have never closed. :: * I am a 20 year old bisexual male. I believe that same-sex couples should be afforded the rights given to heterosexual couples in marriage. * I am an American male. The notion of homosexual "marriage" is an affront to every decent man, woman and child. Marriage means, and always has meant, the union of one man and one woman. There is no reason to change that now to mean anything else. Homosexuals can sleep with a flock of geese for all I care, but it's not marriage. Homosexuals should not be allowed to "marry" each other, and they sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to adopt children! Lou franklin 04:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC) * I'm a gay male, and I think it’s too difficult to create gay marriage per se. I think it would make more sense to create a specific law saying that “civil unions” or whatever it was decided was equivalent to marriage in all rights and deeds. That would make the easiest direct connection for rights and allow the people who feel it’s a religious affront to their concept of “marriage” itself. In regards to the person above, you’d rather have children grow up on the streets and in orphanages and turn out to be crack dealers than be adopted by gay people? Think of how crazy that is... * I like the idea of dumping marriage from legal status altogether. See the Campaign To End Legal Marriage - Munchtipq 05:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC) * I am a 29 yrs old student of computer science (straight) and I think, everyone who confuses a state marriage with a religious marriage is just being unprecise. No religious organization should be allowed to impose their standards on a state marriage. So I think it is okay if a priest does not want to marry gay people, but it is totally against the constitution if the state discriminates people on religious grounds * I am a 27 year old married straight atheist male from the United Kingdom. I believe that equality means equality, and therefore full marriage should be avaliable to homosexuals, not just special case 'civil partnerships'. I believe that the only people who can diminish the sanctity of your marriage are you and your spouse, and with all respect to the Christians who have posted above - most of whom have shown very reasonable views in my opinion - I find it quite absurd that we allow mythology to dictate position on such important issues in this day and age. Category:Civil rights